There are ongoing discussions and debates going on amongst those who hold to Calvinism and profess a reformed theological heritage. Those dialogues are being addressed on various subjects and they are being conducted with respect and with a goal to shed light on these issues. One of the current subjects being addressed goes back, in essence, to the differences between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. The topic being scrutinized is the different understanding of what is called Covenant Theology. Many among the reformed circles understand that there is a difference between what is called Paedobaptism (or infant baptism) and credobaptism (believer’s baptism) but what many fail to understand or have not encountered is the significant differences in their understanding of the covenants. The differences between these two positions is not merely baptismal methodology but a significant difference in their understanding of Covenant Theology itself.
I ran into a website recently called 1689 Federalism which really makes a point to help people understand the differences between these two positions. It made me appreciate that there is a reason the 1689 London Baptist Confession was drawn up and that these differences in theology should be explored. I have not looked at the entire website so please approach with caution but for the most part they had some interesting thoughts on this important matter.
Also, on this website, I found this debate between Michael Horton who wrote a book (which I own) on covenant theology called “The God of Promise” representing the paedobaptist side and a Jeffrey Johnson who wrote “The Fatal Flaw” representing the credobaptist side. I have posted it to the debate section but thought I would also mention it here in case anyone is interested in learning more about this very important issue.
Please feel free to also to visit our theology section on Covenant Theology for more information.